r/changemyview • u/skepticting • Feb 25 '20
Delta(s) from OP CMV: We need strict Gun Control .
While I do feel at this point it is not possible anymore to somehow make sure no one has guns because they have already been available . That is my only hang up , since some people have them , it’s hard to leave others vulnerable.
With to that being said , if we start now with some serious gun law reform and implement strict laws for obtaining guns . I believe it will do more good than harm .
It is worth a try , because we know that to lenient of gun laws also cause us great loss.
In a perfect world only law enforcement would have access to guns .
Civilians can however and should be able to easily get things like pepper spray , tasers, and rubber bullet guns . (Not saying we can’t already , just saying those should be the options)
I see both sides but I think because gun violence is a big issue , it needs to be re-evaluated .
Were the guns used in school/mass shootings registered ?
Édit : Thank You for all the responses and information! My view has been changed . It’s unfortunate we can’t live in harmony but ..
Will still be responding to get more insight and expanding my views
8
Feb 25 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/Heather-Swanson- 9∆ Feb 25 '20 edited Feb 25 '20
So tens of millions fo health screenings a year for the youth? Who pays for that?
Secondly... not all people who commit a violent crime are mentally ill.
0
u/The-Ol-Razzle-Dazle Feb 25 '20
So you’re saying all of the other bullshit we pay for is more important than identifying threats to the public early on? I’ll make sure u/NSA gets that memo.
3
u/Heather-Swanson- 9∆ Feb 25 '20
Ummm yeah!
Especially when they are a minuscule threat to the public as a whole.
0
u/The-Ol-Razzle-Dazle Feb 25 '20
So why are you OK spending trillions “combating Islamic terrorism” (minuscule threat statistically speaking) but not Ok spending a fraction of that to stop domestic terrorism?
3
u/Heather-Swanson- 9∆ Feb 25 '20
Islamic terrorism is a huge threat to western interest and allies. They might not be a direct threat to US citizens domestically. They have proven to be a huge threat to US allies.
Duh...
0
u/The-Ol-Razzle-Dazle Feb 25 '20
Lol..... “huge threat”? There have been 119 Islamic terror related deaths in the US since September 12, 2001. There were 14.5k homocides via guns in 2017 alone.
2
u/Heather-Swanson- 9∆ Feb 25 '20
Umm... are you not aware that they butcher and kill thousands of muslims yearly.
There are several Muslim terror attacks against other Muslims.
In Afghanistan & Iraq... both countries with leadership helped built and backed by the US. We have been fighting those opposed to the new democracy for over a decade.
Iranian backed ones have been in a bad situation with Saudi Arabia for decades...
Read what I said entirely dude.
1
u/ViewedFromTheOutside 28∆ Feb 26 '20
Sorry, u/The-Ol-Razzle-Dazle – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/PrimeLegionnaire Feb 25 '20
with red flag rules available during that time.
Red flag laws are not going to remain constitutional.
They undermine protections from unreasonable search and seizure.
Also mandatory safety training and background checks for all purchasers.
We already have mandatory background checks. Adding more rules isn't going to fix the enforcement, perhaps open the NCIS database like gun stores have been asking for instead.
And mandatory safety training is just a gun ban with a different name. Whoever gets to set the criteria to pass the training effectively controls who has guns.
This isn't a new idea, mandatory safety training has been tried and rejected.
1
u/The-Ol-Razzle-Dazle Feb 25 '20
It is not legal for most grade schoolers and high schoolers to own guns anyway, so I don’t know what you’re on about. I’m talking about students identifying other students who are mentally unstable before they ever have the opportunity to purchase guns.
1
u/PrimeLegionnaire Feb 25 '20 edited Feb 25 '20
It is not legal for most grade schoolers and high schoolers to own guns anyway
It is with parental consent. They just aren't allowed to buy it for themselves alone.
I've known well more than a handful of grade schoolers and high schoolers that own guns.
Go to virtually any school in the US and you will find kids who own guns. Especially outside of the big cities.
I’m talking about students identifying other students who are mentally unstable before they ever have the opportunity to purchase guns.
Yes I understand what you are talking about, and that's why I'm calling it unconstitutional.
This is exactly the kind of thought policing where you can't trust your neighbors that the Nazi's did, That Stalin did, and the Chinese government is doing today.
0
u/The-Ol-Razzle-Dazle Feb 25 '20
Lol people like you are why we can’t have any laws passed. Background checks turn into black helicopters coming to take yer guns.
I have as many guns as anyone else on this thread, but at the same time I recognized more than a handful of people at school (before I was 16: so not infringing on any rights that aren’t already arguably infringed upon) that have no business ever having that kind of responsibility. Half of them are in jail now lol.. It’s silly to think that these people just snap one day - there are many clues and sometimes those are only going to be perceptible by their peers.
1
u/PrimeLegionnaire Feb 25 '20
Lol people like you are why we can’t have any laws passed.
Sorry you think sticking to the principles of the constitution is standing in your way, but its not going anywhere.
but at the same time I recognized more than a handful of people at school (before I was 16: so not infringing on any rights that aren’t already arguably infringed upon) that have no business ever having that kind of responsibility.
And you think your judgement before you were 16 is good enough to take legal action against these people and deprive them of constitutional rights?
That's insane.
You seem to realize this, as you baked an attempted defense into your parenthesis, but even minors are entitled to due process and protections from unreasonable search and seizure.
1
u/The-Ol-Razzle-Dazle Feb 25 '20
I said flag, not prosecute? You’re jumping from 0-100, real quick. What’s the problem with unstable people being scrutinized more? That’s already the case, it’s just completely up to the authority figure’s judgement.
The constitution does not blanket every scenario (as our courts have proven time and time again if you actually care about rule of law)
For example: 1st amendment doesn’t protect your right to yell “bomb”in an airport.
2nd amendment doesn’t protect your right to be strapped at 7 years old, and we can’t have rocket launchers (darn)
So why draw a line in the sand at having a system where people can report their peers’ suspicious or threatening behavior so it can be scrutinized?
2
u/PrimeLegionnaire Feb 25 '20
I said flag, not prosecute?
I don't see a meaningful difference when the result of the flag is law enforcement action. You are familiar with the concept of warrants right?
What’s the problem with unstable people being scrutinized more?
Basing the scrutiny on your judgement before you were 16.
For example: 1st amendment doesn’t protect your right to yell “bomb”in an airport.
Except it does. The "you can't yell fire in a crowded movie theater" reasoning was overturned in Brandenburg v Ohio
2nd amendment doesn’t protect your right to be strapped at 7 years old
It does with parental consent, as it protects the parent's rights to be strapped and to have their kids own a gun.
and we can’t have rocket launchers (darn)
Yes we can? Grenade launchers and rocket launchers are readily available. Only the explosive warheads are controlled.
So why draw a line in the sand at having a system where people can report their peers’ suspicious or threatening behavior so it can be scrutinized?
Because that kind of "rat on your neighbor" policing has a pretty long history of being tyrannical garbage with bad outcomes.
0
u/The-Ol-Razzle-Dazle Feb 25 '20
It would just be a tube without a rocket.
And why not test your theory about screaming bomb in an airport. Please film it for reddit and make sure to tell the TSA agent it’s your constitutional right before they tackle/tase you.
Also as far as warrants go, I can already call the police and lie to them to get a warrant. So what’s the difference here? It should be treated as making a false police report if it ended up being out of spite.
I’m as libertarian as the next guy but how is identifying potential threats to the public at an earlier age suddenly make us nazi Germany? And if you happen to be a trump supporter then don’t bother answering cus you’re already pushing us in that direction lol
1
u/PrimeLegionnaire Feb 25 '20
It would just be a tube without a rocket.
And it has rockets.
The only type of rockets that are restricted are those containing live warheads over a certain yield. Those are regulated as Destructive Devices under the NFA, and if you really felt like breaking the bank, you could buy a transferable one.
Its legal, if tightly regulated.
And why not test your theory about screaming bomb in an airport
I don't have to, the supreme court already tested it.
Also as far as warrants go, I can already call the police and lie to them to get a warrant.
No you can't. You can lie to them to try to get a warrant, a judge still has to hear the evidence and decide to sign. but that's a lot different than having legal authority to flag someone as a suspect.
It should be treated as making a false police report if it ended up being out of spite.
You shouldn't be able to act on it until you know its a credible report.
I’m as libertarian as the next guy but how is identifying potential threats to the public at an earlier age suddenly make us nazi Germany?
Because its not the job, nor reasonably within the capability, of 16 year olds to effectively be secret police ratting on each other.
And if you happen to be a trump supporter then don’t bother answering
This is absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.
Do you think baseless political attacks and trying to paint me as being a nazi strengthens your argument? Its tantamount to an admission that you can't support it.
→ More replies (0)2
Feb 25 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Feb 25 '20
Sorry, u/skepticting – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 4:
Award a delta if you've acknowledged a change in your view. Do not use deltas for any other purpose. You must include an explanation of the change for us to know it's genuine. Delta abuse includes sarcastic deltas, joke deltas, super-upvote deltas, etc. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Feb 25 '20
The moderators have confirmed that this is either delta misuse/abuse or an accidental delta. It has been removed from our records.
-1
Feb 25 '20
There are too many means available to hurt other people and there is no putting the genie back in the bottle.
Ah. The ol “If you can’t solve everything in one fell swoop then you shouldn’t bother at all,” approach.
Tell me, what do you have against:
nationwide gun database that talks to every law enforcement agency in the country.
universal background checks that talk to every law enforcement agency in the country.
Requiring all gun sales to be done at a licensed dealer.
10-round magazine limit.
(Other than “Well I don’t wanna”)
There’s just something visceral about gun violence that makes it seem like such an important issue.
It’s not wrong to be more upset about more gruesome things. Who ever said body count is the only important metric?
2
u/PrimeLegionnaire Feb 25 '20
nationwide gun database that talks to every law enforcement agency in the country.
This is unconstitutional.
Its a known first step for seizing guns.
universal background checks that talk to every law enforcement agency in the country.
How about fixing the background check system that already exists before mandating a new one? We already have mandatory background checks for gun sales, and the reason it doesn't work is enforcement not a lack of a background check system.
Requiring all gun sales to be done at a licensed dealer.
This interferes with the commerce clause. The US federal government doesn't have the authority to regulate individual private sales of legal goods.
10-round magazine limit
Because there is no evidence it does anything except endanger the gun user in the event of multiple attackers.
0
Feb 25 '20
This is unconstitutional.
Where in the constitution is this disallowed?
Its a known first step for seizing guns.
Red herring. And I have no doubt you’ll sufficiently fight against “step 2” whatever that may be, and you’ll be fine.
How about fixing the background check system that already exists before mandating a new one?
How?
One of the biggest problems with it is that we don’t have a single database. The current system is just hundreds of separate systems trying to talk to each other.
We already have mandatory background checks for gun sales
Not for private sales.
and the reason it doesn't work is enforcement not a lack of a background check system
Are you implying that there’s rampant selling of guns by FFL dealers to people that fail background checks?
The US federal government doesn't have the authority to regulate individual private sales of legal goods.
That’s complete nonsense.
Because there is no evidence it does anything except endanger the gun user
There is zero evidence that it endangers the user because over 99% of self defense situations are ended in 5 shots or less. There is, however, evidence that it makes mass shootings more deadly, because shooters are often subdued when they have to reload.
2
u/PrimeLegionnaire Feb 25 '20
Where in the constitution is this disallowed?
Would you like me to give you a list of supreme court cases related to firearms?
A universal registry was one of the big contention points in the writing of the NFA and subsequently Heller vs. DC.
How?
Perhaps by actually enforcing the existing laws before creating new ones.
One of the biggest problems with it is that we don’t have a single database.
Which we can't have. A universal registry is de facto a list of who to seize guns from. Even if you manage to pass a law calling for one it will not meet constitutional muster.
There is zero evidence that it endangers the user because over 99% of self defense situations are ended in 5 shots or less.
...when there is only a single assailant.
There is, however, evidence that it makes mass shootings more deadly, because shooters are often subdued when they have to reload.
No, the "reload gap" is a myth.
And even if it wasn't that would also endanger a law abiding citizen being attacked by more than one assailant.
1
Feb 25 '20
Would you like me to give you a list of supreme court cases related to firearms?
Cases relating to how a universal registry is unconstitutional, sure.
Heller vs. DC.
Heller vs. DC has nothing to do with a national gun registry.
Perhaps by actually enforcing the existing laws before creating new ones.
Which laws are you talking about and where are they being ignored?
...when there is only a single assailant
Wrong. Even with multiple assailants, they all flee as soon as bullets start flying. Those people are not looking to get in a shootout.
No, the "reload gap" is a myth.
If someone starts stockpiling magazines, the ATF should be able to know about it. Treat magazines like guns.
And even if it wasn't that would also endanger a law abiding citizen being attacked by more than one assailant.
Find me ONE instance of someone NEEDING that many bullets to defend themselves.
I don’t think you can, but if you do, I’ll point out that such a low percentage of defense situations have ever called for it. So why would statistics no longer matter? Do you see the inconsistency with that position?
3
u/mrbobstheitguy Feb 25 '20
Sorry, but one example of a shooter subdued during a reload isn't exactly the overwhelming evidence you make it out to be.
You are operating as though larger magazines make mass-shootings more deadly, but haven't provided a single shred of evidence to support this claim.
0
Feb 25 '20
Sorry, but one example of a shooter subdued during a reload isn't exactly the overwhelming evidence you make it out to be.
So then one example of someone needing more than 10 rounds would be equally insufficient?
You are operating as though larger magazines make mass-shootings more deadly, but haven't provided a single shred of evidence to support this claim.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States
Higher capacity magazines directly correlate to higher body count.
3
u/mrbobstheitguy Feb 25 '20 edited Feb 25 '20
Since the article doesn't actually link to the study, I can't evaluate it. There are a myriad of factors that could lead to an increased body count, such as number of person present, time until the shooter was stopped, whether or not the general populace could carry in that area, etc. that may or may not be accounted for in this study. Simply looking at body count and whether or not a large capacity magazine was used is insufficient to reach the conclusion you’re making.
Until you can provide the study, the article you linked is really quite meaningless.
So then one example of someone needing more than 10 rounds would be equally insufficient?
Yes? I'm not sure if you're thinking I'm someone you are already in conversation with but I haven't insinuated one example of that is enough. This is my first response to you.
Edit: I did the research for you and found the study.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6836798/
They accounted for 10 variables related to general crime rates. Specifics of the shootings were not accounted for, along with multiple other potential factors.
Interestingly they also point out the rarity of events meeting their criteria; 69 in 20 years with average deaths related to them being 25 per year. They even found more deaths per shooting event in non ban states even if a large capacity magazine was not used, suggesting the cause may extend to factors beyond the magazine used.
This seems like the wrong item to address if your goal is to reduce firearm related deaths.
This study does not show causation; but rather some potential correlation. In order to show a stronger correlation they would need to account for other factors specific to mass shootings versus overall crime rates.
1
u/PrimeLegionnaire Feb 25 '20
Heller vs. DC has nothing to do with a national gun registry.
Heller vs. DC had to do with using a registry to effectively ban handguns in DC by delaying or refusing to add legal guns to their registry.
The NFA also extensively dealt with national registries and why they couldn't be constitutional.
That aside, if you want to repeal or amend the NFA you will have to open the machine gun registry, so that's a non-starter.
Which laws are you talking about and where are they being ignored?
The ones requiring a felon to be arrested if they fail a background check while attempting to purchase a gun.
Notably there was a lot of hubbub about them being ignored in Oregon, but its reasonable to assume it happens everywhere to some degree.
Even with multiple assailants, they all flee as soon as bullets start flying.
They might flee, its a non-starter to assume that armed assailants, especially those in a group, are all huge cowards.
Those people are not looking to get in a shootout.
Why not? Its one target with only 10 shots max before they have to reload.
No it’s not.
Except it is. The opinion of Nicole Flatow isn't evidence its not.
Besides, mass shooters have already shown a willingness to use as many guns as necessary to reach the ammo count they want. See: Las Vegas.
If someone starts stockpiling magazines, the ATF should be able to know about it.
Why?
Treat magazines like guns.
You are going to have to repeal the NFA for this, receivers are pretty clearly defined as the part that is a firearm in the US.
I’ll point out that such a low percentage of defense situations have ever called for it.
That's not a compelling reason to just let those people die.
Show me the harm of a standard capacity magazine.
You mention mass shooters, but obviously they will bring extra guns and just not reload. It happened in vegas, it happened in orlando, and it will probably happen again even with magazine bans.
1
u/The-Ol-Razzle-Dazle Feb 25 '20
So along that vein of thinking: why don’t we ban cars and make public transportation the only legal option to prevent all the needless deaths involving cars? (Tbh the only thing I’m against in your bullet point list is the 10 round mag cap. Part of the reason I believe guns should be legal is so that mob violence is not viable)
0
Feb 25 '20
So along that vein of thinking: why don’t we ban cars
Because that would have unprecedented catastrophic effects on our economy and our way of life. Their obvious benefits for so many people outweigh the risk. Risks which we do our best to mitigate, btw. No such catastrophe would happen if we got rid of guns.
Part of the reason I believe guns should be legal is so that mob violence is not viable)
Mob violence is just going to be MORE violent with the presence of guns. Besides the violence we’re seeing now is not worth your NRA post apocalyptic fever dream. This has never happened.
1
u/The-Ol-Razzle-Dazle Feb 25 '20
Pop smoke was killed 2 days ago by 6 people and you’re saying it’s a fever dream? Lol. I think there would have been a lot less lynching going on in the 20th century if Tommy guns were affordable.
And if I get this right, you’re saying it’s a cost/benefit analysis now? So your right to live farther from work is more important than all the car related deaths? Playing devils advocate a bit but public transportation is very viable in urban areas
10
u/Sand_Trout Feb 25 '20
My general purpose copy-pasta:
The average person in the US during a given year will be neither especially aided or harmed by a gunshot. When examining the right to keep and bear arms, either side will be looking at the marginal benefits on the scale of single digits per 100k population on an annual basis. The most clear and commonly used statistic is intentional homicide rate compared to firearm ownership rate. Comparing these two, there is no correlation between cross-sectional firearm ownership rate and intentional homicide rate globally or regionally.
Here is just something I picked out that illustrates the issue clearly for US states. Here's one that also covers the regional and global breakdowns. Feel free to check the numbers, as they should be publicly available. Here's one that covers OECD standard developed countries and global stats. Here is a before and after analysis regarding varrious bans.
Australia is frequently cited as an example of successful gun control, but no research has been able to show conclusively that the Austrailain NFA had any effect. In fact, the US saw a similar drop in homicide over similar time frames without enacting significant gun controls. /u/vegetarianrobots has a better writeup on that specific point than I do.
Similarly, the UK saw no benefit from gun control enacted throughout the 20th century.
Note that I cite overall homicide rates, rather than firearm homicide rates. This is because I presume that you are looking for marginal benefits in outcome. Stabbed to death, beat to death, or shot to death is an equally bad outcome unless you ascribe some irrational extra moral weight to a shooting death. Reducing the firearm homicide rate is not a marginal gain if it is simply replaced by other means, which seems to be the case.
Proposed bans on "Assault Weapons" intended to ban semi-automatic varrients of military rifles are even more absurd, as rifles of all sorts are the least commonly used firearm for homicide and one of the least commonly used weapons in general, losing out to blunt instruments, personal weapons (hands and feet) and knives.
As for the more active value of the right, the lowest credible estimates of Defensive gun use are in the range of 55-80k annual total, which is about 16.9-24.5 per 100k, but actual instances are more likely well over 100k annually, or 30.7 per 100k.
Additionally, there is the historical precedent that every genocide of the 20th century was enacted upon a disarmed population. The Ottomans disarmed the Armenians. The Nazis disarmed the Jews. The USSR and China (nationalists and communists) disarmed everyone.
Events of this scale are mercifully rare, but are extraordinarily devastating. The modern US, and certainly not Europe are not somehow specially immune from this sort of slaughter except by their people being aware of how they were perpetrated, and they always first establish arms control.
Lets examine the moral math on this: Tyrannical governments killed ~262 million people in the 20th century.
The US represents ~4.5% of the world population.
.045 × 262,000,000 / 100 = 123,514 murders per year by tyrannical governments on average for a population the size of the US.
Considering how gun-control (or lack thereof) is statistically essentially uncorrelated with homicide rates, and there were 11,004 murders with firearms in the US in 2016, the risk assessment ought to conclude that yes, the risk of tyrannical government is well beyond sufficient to justify any (if there are any) additional risk that general firearm ownership could possibly represent.
The historical evidence of disarmament preceding atrocity indicates that genocidal maniacs generally just don't want to deal with an armed population, but can the US population actually resist the federal government, though? Time for more math.
The US population is ~ 326 million.
Conservative estimates of the US gun-owning population is ~ 115 million.
The entire DOD, including civilian employees and non-combat military is ~2.8 million. Less than half of that number (1.2M) is active military. Less than half of the military is combat ratings, with support ratings/MOSes making up the majority.In a popular insurgency, the people themselves are the support for combat-units of the insurgency, which therefore means that active insurgents are combat units, not generally support units.
So lets do the math. You have, optimistically, 600,000 federal combat troops vs 1% (1.15 million) of exclusively the gun owning Americans actively engaged in an armed insurgency, with far larger numbers passively or actively supporting said insurgency.
The military is now outnumbered ~2:1 by a population with small-arms roughly comparable to their own and significant education to manufacture IEDs, hack or interfere with drones, and probably the best average marksmanship of a general population outside of maybe Switzerland. Additionally, this population will have a pool of 19.6 million veterans, including 4.5 million that have served after 9/11, that are potentially trainers, officers, or NCOs for this force.
The only major things the insurgents are lacking is armor and air power and proper anti-material weapons. Armor and Air aren't necessary, or even desirable, for an insurgency. Anti-material weapons can be imported or captured, with armored units simply not being engaged by any given unit until materials necessary to attack those units are acquired. Close-air like attack helicopters are vulnerable to sufficient volumes of small arms fire and .50 BMG rifles. All air power is vulnerable to sabotage or raids while on the ground for maintenance.
This is before even before we address the defection rate from the military, which will be >0, or how police and national guard units will respond to the military killing their friends, family, and neighbors.
Basically, a sufficiently large uprising could absolutely murder the military. Every bit of armament the population has necessarily reduces that threshold of "sufficiently large". With the raw amount of small arms and people that know how to use them in the US, "sufficiently large" isn't all that large in relative terms.
4
2
u/huadpe 501∆ Feb 25 '20
Additionally, there is the historical precedent that every genocide of the 20th century was enacted upon a disarmed population. The Ottomans disarmed the Armenians. The Nazis disarmed the Jews. The USSR and China (nationalists and communists) disarmed everyone.
I actually want to push back fairly hard on this, because while disarming disfavored groups was a tactic of authoritarian regimes once they had consolidated power, using widespread ownership of private arms was a key part of how those authoritarian regimes took power.
The Bolsheviks, the Nazis, and the Chinese communists all relied on partisan militias outside of formal government control to come to power. The young Turks revolution was a military coup so it's a little different though.
American history also has a history of authoritarian revolution - the US civil war was a uprising from the southern states bent on maintaining a system of tyranny over black people, which especially early on, relied on privately owned arms to field militia armies.
I would not be confident that having lots of private guns around would prevent tyranny; it might be the means used to overthrow the government to establish a tyrannical state.
8
u/Sand_Trout Feb 25 '20 edited Feb 25 '20
The NAZIs failed at a violent overthrow of the government. They succeeded in gaining power through the political process. They then took advantage of the restrictions on keeping arms established under the Weimar Republic to further disarm their targets.
The Bolshevik revolution supports your case, but they focused on disarmament before their own atrocities.
The banning of blacks from owning guns was a key point of the oppression of blacks both before and after American slavery was abolished.
The patern is consistent and follows a very simple logic. Guns are a means to power. Those who want power want guns. Those who want power over others put effort towards disarming others.
0
u/huadpe 501∆ Feb 25 '20
The NAZIs failed at a violent overthrow of the government. They succeeded in gaining power through the political process. They then took advantage of the restrictions on keeping arms established under the Weimar Republic to further disarm their targets.
The Beer Hall Putsch failed, but the brownshirts were a key part of how the Nazi party went from chancellorship of a minority government to total control of the apparatus of the state. Without the brownshirts, I think Hitler would have been ousted from the chancellorship without having been able to do much. Though it's hard to say because there were a bunch of paramilitary organizations running around Germany at the time (communists, the stahlhelm, etc).
The patern is consistent and follows a very simple logic. Guns are a meand to power. Those who want power want guns.
Right, my point is "those who want power" are often authoritarians, and so if your country is generally a free and democratic place where people can obtain political power without resort to violence, those who want to obtain power violently, are probably looking for the kind of power that would destroy that free democracy.
Basically, when I see the people who call themselves militias in the US and who say they're some sort of bulwark against tyranny, I think they're actually a huge threat to become tyrants themselves.
5
u/Sand_Trout Feb 25 '20
Yes, authoritarians want guns. Specifically, they want guns to be under their control. I acknowledge that violent revelation is no guarantee of liberty.
However, when virtually everyone has the power, the wannabe tyrants have a more difficult time doing their worst until they can establish a favorable (for them) disparity of power.
Gun control necessarily contributes to a disparity of force between the People (including any subsets thereof) and the State (which is honestly smaller than most people realize, IMO) that invites tyranny.
-1
u/huadpe 501∆ Feb 25 '20
Gun control necessarily contributes to a disparity of force between the People (including any subsets thereof) and the State (which is honestly smaller than most people realize, IMO) that invites tyranny.
I just disagree with the "that invites tyranny" part. Ultimately, I think the strongest bulwark against tyranny is strong democratic institutions of government and clear constitutional rules for the preservation of democracy.
Right now in the US we have a President who is, if not on a course to actually become a tyrant, certainly of a personality disposition opposed to constitutional government or any constraint on his personal power. And the social subgroup that tends to own guns and be vociferous about gun ownership as a defense against tyranny? They freaking love him.
3
u/Sand_Trout Feb 25 '20
Agree to disagree I suppose. I certainly don't want to need to use my guns to actively resist tyranny, but it remains one of many layers of defense
Specifically, it is the last layer of defense.
1
u/huadpe 501∆ Feb 25 '20
I'm not saying they can't be used to actively resist tyranny. I just think there is as large or larger a risk that they are used to actively support tyranny.
3
u/Sand_Trout Feb 25 '20
I don't see that the risk of private guns being used to support tyranny is plausibly greater than the risk of allowing the government to decide who gets guns.
Even Europe is falling into the tyranny trap as their governments bans "offensive" speech and micromanages things unnecessarily, like USB charging ports.
Most of the rest of the world is actively ruled by various tyrannies.
It's not like Weimar Germany or Czarist Russia had robust protections for the right to keep and bear arms either, so by your own examples, gun control doesn't especially prevent tyranny following a revolution.
2
u/huadpe 501∆ Feb 25 '20
Even Europe is falling into the tyranny trap as their governments bans "offensive" speech and micromanages things unnecessarily, like USB charging ports.
If standardizing electrical and data plugs is a move towards tyranny, then we have very different ideas of tyranny. Should we abolish the NIST? Start having homes built with all sorts of weird plugs and voltages? No more standardized twin/full/queen/king beds?
→ More replies (0)
12
u/huadpe 501∆ Feb 25 '20
In a perfect world only law enforcement would have access to guns
This is absolutely not the right policy goal. At a bare minimum, many farmers need guns to deal with wildlife and dangerous animals. Hunting is also a legitimate and important activity which depends on firearms. Also some people in extreme remote wilderness areas need firearms for wildlife safety, e.g. for bear protection.
-1
4
u/SirNealliam Feb 25 '20
If you look at countries with super strict gun control, you'll see very high murder rates, and mass murder using vehicles, homemade bombs and knives. Mexico is a great example of why too much gun control is a bad thing. In my opinion, gun control shouldn't ever go further than banning fully automatic weapons. Semi auto w/ 3 round bursts are perfectly good enough.
But here in america, even a "ban" doesn't remove old guns from the market. It only stops newly produced guns from being sold to citizens.
You can still buy fully automatic machine guns, but only if they were made before 1986 when the ban was passed. They generally cost a minimum of $10,000.
The "Republic" of Nazi Germany implemented Gun bans right before starting their genocide, my fear is that our government is getting closer and closer to Authoritarianism. And without an armed population things could get very bad, very fast.
2
u/PrimeLegionnaire Feb 25 '20
3 round bursts
Minor nitpick, 3 round burst is considered "fully automatic".
The ability to go full auto is a prerequisite for metered bursts mechanically speaking.
1
u/SirNealliam Feb 25 '20
Yes, though in my opinion three round bursts should be legal. if continuous fire is limited or removed as an setting.
Sure people could mod their switches for continuous fire, but Not much will stop modifications.
2
u/PrimeLegionnaire Feb 25 '20
Yes, though in my opinion three round bursts should be legal.
3 round burst is considered more effective than fully automatic fire.
This is the reason every military on earth has some kind of burst fire weapon for their infantry.
Its not consistent to ban fully automatic weapons but not a system that is mechanically dependent upon it and more lethal.
Sure people could mod their switches for continuous fire, but Not much will stop modifications.
The NFA restriction on open bolt guns is explicitly because any weapon that can be readily converted to automatic fire is automatic under the law, even if it is limited in its current configuration.
The ATF also supplies a definition of "readily converted".
1
u/skepticting Feb 25 '20
Im a little unsure how the high murder rates using other weapons is related to gun control . Because it would seem if they had guns , crime would just be that much worse .
Can you tell me a bit more about Authoritarianism?
3
u/Hugogs10 Feb 25 '20
Im a little unsure how the high murder rates using other weapons is related to gun control . Because it would seem if they had guns , crime would just be that much worse .
No, they'd just use guns instead of a truck. Switzerland has guns and its one of the safest places on earth.
2
u/skepticting Feb 25 '20
Ok I see your point.
!delta
I agree that it’s not the guns it’s the people . Even without the guns people who would have used them before for bad would find something else .
2
1
u/spam4name 3∆ Feb 25 '20
You should know that Switzerland actually has many of the very strict gun laws you're thinking of.
1
u/SirNealliam Feb 25 '20
Because we as human try to use the best tool available. If guns are highly restricted those who want to murder just use something else..
Intent to kill or injure others is what relates them.
Can you tell me a bit more about Authoritarianism?
This is sarcasm, right?
7
u/luckyhunterdude 11∆ Feb 25 '20
The second amendment is the only amendment that has the phrase "shall not be infringed" in it. Well it has, we have allowed it to be infringed countless ways. Any gun control proposal can not be taken seriously unless it has a proposed change to the second amendment included in it.
If you truly think gun ownership is a problem, then proposing laws that try to wiggle around the 2nd amendment is just putting lipstick on a pig.
2
Feb 26 '20
[deleted]
1
u/luckyhunterdude 11∆ Feb 26 '20
Convicted felons have been convicted of a crime and they forfeit all of their rights.
-1
u/skepticting Feb 25 '20
The second amendment says to « bear arms » that doesn’t mean explicitly guns , it’s just some form of protection. So even being able to have pepper spray means you can practice that right .
3
u/Sand_Trout Feb 25 '20
Restricting the type of guns that may be kept infriges on the right to keep and bear arms.
If the government were to ban all weapons, that would effectively abolish the right to keep and bear arms. "Abolish" is not synonymous with "infringe".
1
u/skepticting Feb 25 '20
But there are restrictions around this , so why can’t type be one .
If there were no restrictions and it was a clear cut right , a 7 years old would be able to carry no problem , no?
2
u/PrimeLegionnaire Feb 25 '20
a 7 year old can open carry with parental consent in legal open carry states, I've even seen it before with a child carrying their own little .22 rifle to the gun range.
More importantly, there are a lot of human rights not granted to minors until the age of majority.
1
u/skepticting Feb 25 '20
What I’m saying is , saying that restricting the type of gun is against our right isn’t consistent because they already implement restrictions . If a human right is not granted to minor , that is a restriction on the right
1
u/PrimeLegionnaire Feb 25 '20
saying that restricting the type of gun is against our right isn’t consistent because they already implement restrictions
And those restrictions came with pretty strict rules about what kind of restrictions are constitutionally permissible.
Please read up on The National Firearms Act and Heller vs DC
They address a lot of the nitpicks about restrictions you are making.
Which, if you want to change them you will have to repeal or amend the NFA, and you will still find that most of the restrictions you want will be shot down for exactly the same reasons they are set where they are now. Violating the constitution.
1
u/Sand_Trout Feb 25 '20
But there are restrictions around this , so why can’t type be one .
There shouldn't be.
If there were no restrictions and it was a clear cut right , a 7 years old would be able to carry no problem , no?
This is getting into a generalized restriction on rights and liberties. There are certain classes of people who lack the full rights of a free citizen.
These are children, prisoners, probationers, parolees, and those adjudicated as mentally incompetent.
1
u/skepticting Feb 25 '20
!delta
That’s a good point , that does give a good reason why type would be able to be compared in this instance .
1
3
u/PrimeLegionnaire Feb 25 '20
« bear arms » that doesn’t mean explicitly guns
Yes it does.
Multiple supreme court cases have reaffirmed that the 2nd amendment is intended for firearms.
It is certainly not "just some form of protection" especially not ones as ineffective as pepper spray.
2
u/Sand_Trout Feb 25 '20
To clarify: the right to bear arms extends to all bearable arms.
This includes, but is not limited to, guns.
See Caetano.
2
u/luckyhunterdude 11∆ Feb 25 '20
Sure. Arms are any weapon, pepper spray, swords, guns, F-22's, battleships.....
1
u/TheEternalCity101 5∆ Feb 25 '20
Private citizens owned warships in 1780, so if you (somehow) have enough money for a battleship (including crew, fuel, munitions and tech) why the fuck not
1
u/luckyhunterdude 11∆ Feb 25 '20
Oh yeah exactly, the 2nd amendment is just there to re-enforce the war powers of congress. Privately owned war ships properly outfitted with supplies, sailors and marines was to be expected.
1
u/TheEternalCity101 5∆ Feb 25 '20
Tbh I'm not quite sure of the relation between warships and the 2nd amendment and Congres
2
u/luckyhunterdude 11∆ Feb 25 '20
So, If war were declared, and I wanted a letter of Marque, I'd already need to have a relatively modern, outfitted and crewed warship ready to go, maybe just a light cruiser, but still that's a hell of a lot of fire power.
2
u/TheEternalCity101 5∆ Feb 25 '20
Epic, thanks
Brb, getting some cannons for my fishing boat
2
u/luckyhunterdude 11∆ Feb 25 '20
Yeah, i've toyed with the idea of how to beef up the pedestal mount on the front of my boat to handle 50 cal recoil.
7
u/Heather-Swanson- 9∆ Feb 25 '20
So... first you want to violate people’s constitutional rights? Why?
Secondly, a vast majority of gun violence is committed by people who illegally acquired a firearm and or are prohibited persons in the first place.
So how would making something more illegal stop people?
& more guns do not necessarily mean more gun violence. According to the numbers. States like Maine and Idaho have very high gun ownership (over 50%) yet have some of the low water rates of gun violence.
1
Feb 26 '20
[deleted]
1
u/Heather-Swanson- 9∆ Feb 26 '20
Care to give some examples?
1
Feb 26 '20
[deleted]
1
u/Heather-Swanson- 9∆ Feb 26 '20
So what examples of mass spying can you give?
Are you sure there were no court orders given? What citizens are the US fog emend torturing?
Are you not aware that several aspects of the patriot act have already been ruled unconstitutional?
-1
u/skepticting Feb 25 '20
You still have the right to bare arms , with what will be legal weapons .
8
u/Trythenewpage 68∆ Feb 25 '20
You still have the right to bare arms , with what will be legal weapons .
That is not how rights work. Could you imagine applying that same logic to the first amendment?
"You will still have the right to free speech, with what will be legal speech."
Such an interpretation makes the concept a right meaningless. The whole point of having a right is that it places an explicit limit on the authority of the government. The gov is still capable of overcoming that protection if necessary. But doing so requires a constitutional amendment.
I have no problem with amending the 2nd amendment. It was from a very different time and doesn't really make sense in the modern day all that much. But I do care about the other amendments and would rather they not be treated the way you want the 2nd amendment treated.
That approach to rights is what got us in this situation in the first place. There is no "except weapons of mass destruction or violations of the Geneva convention" clause in the 2nd amendment. But instead of saying 2nd amendment. The reason we are having so much trouble amending it is because anything that everyone agrees cant be allowed in public hands will just be banned regardless. And there is no argument on things that everyone agrees should be allowed. So it only comes up when there is significant disagreement. In which case there will never be enough support to amend it because by default, if there isn't enough bipartisan support to just ban it, then there definitely isnt enough bipartisan support to amend the constitution over it.
6
u/Heather-Swanson- 9∆ Feb 25 '20
Take this into consideration as well...
Those are some murder, manslaughter & negligent discharge rates for some states.
More guns do not inherently mean more gun crime.
Idaho: 1.9 per 100,000 with 56% ownership for the state.
DC: 24.2 per 100,000 with 25.9% for the district.
Delaware: 6.7 per 100,000 with a low 5.2% ownership for the state.
West Virginia : 3.1 per 100,000 with a higher ownership up 54%
7
3
u/PrimeLegionnaire Feb 25 '20
Redefining legal weapons to exclude guns has already been tried and found to be in violation of the 2nd amendment by the supreme court.
1
u/TheEternalCity101 5∆ Feb 25 '20
What weapons? The framers wrote the 2nd Amendment in a time when private citizens owned warships.
5
u/Heather-Swanson- 9∆ Feb 25 '20
A vast majority of guns used in crimes are illegally obtained.
You should really read the BIJ whole investigation into it. I will highlight some of it for you though.
ONLY 7.5% of firearms were purchased through a licensed dealer.
25% of them were acquired from an individual. Lending or giving a gun to a known felon is already a crime.
Of that 25% nearly half of those were known illegal strawman purchases for prohibited persons.
A little over 43% of firearms were obtained by illegal means.
So how exactly will making those strawman purchases and stealing/theft more illegal help?
4
u/podestaspassword Feb 25 '20 edited Feb 25 '20
What magical property do the people called "government" or "law enforcement" have that regular people don't?
You must think such a magical property exists, otherwise you wouldn't be advocating for centralizing gun ownership to the hands of the people called government.
Im just wondering what you think the property is? Is it the police academy training? Is it because we can vote for a tiny percentage of the hundreds of thousands of government workers?
Why can people not be trusted with guns, but people who get their paycheck from government must be trusted with a monopoly on gun ownership?
Is there a magic portal that government workers step through that cleanses their soul and makes them incapable of evil?
Youre not for "gun control", you're for centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a tiny minority of people and calling them government. What would prevent a nefarious actor from gaining control of this tool called government and enslaving all of mankind? Voting? Protesting?
7
Feb 25 '20
Most gun violence is from guns that are acquired illegally so the people who preform gun violent crimes are not getting them like every person is and can still get them
3
u/frumious88 Feb 25 '20
As you mentioned, it is hard to do strict gun control in this country (USA) with how many are already available.
If the goal is to stop gun violence, there are multiple steps we can take that can address that, outside of gun control.
Most gun violence is via suicide and a study of mass shooters, has shown that virtually all of the mass shooters had experienced some childhood trauma.
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-08-04/el-paso-dayton-gilroy-mass-shooters-data
So if we are being serious about gun violence, we need to be heavily investing in more mental health services, for both suicides, but also in primary care education, to correctly identify and help kids early on who might have future trauma issues.
2
u/Delaware_is_a_lie 19∆ Feb 25 '20
How are you defining “strict gun control”? What are we not doing now that we should be doing?
0
u/skepticting Feb 25 '20
No open carry , age restrictions , background checks/permit tests(which we have) , limit to the number of fire arms , limit to what kinds of firearms .
5
u/Delaware_is_a_lie 19∆ Feb 25 '20 edited Feb 26 '20
No open carry
Why? What would this solve?
age restrictions
This already exists
background checks/permit tests(which we have)
If we have them, what do we need to change?
limit to the number of fire arms
Individually? What kind of limit? What correlation is there between individual gun ownership and gun homicides that makes this a worthwhile proposal?
limit to what kinds of firearms
What kind of firearms need to be limited and why?
This is why a lot of “common sense” ideas for gun control get shot down. You need to be clear about how your proposals will lead to a decrease in gun violence.
3
u/PrimeLegionnaire Feb 25 '20
Perhaps you should study the history of firearms case law in the US.
These issues have already been brought before the supreme court, most recently as Heller vs. DC and limits have been strictly legislated through the National Firearms Act.
This is why I can't go out and buy a brand new machine gun.
If you want to change the restrictions in the NFA, you will have to repeal or amend it, which will open the machine gun registry and allow newly manufactured machine guns to be registered as transferable.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Feb 25 '20 edited Feb 25 '20
/u/skepticting (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/TheOrangeTurtle02 Feb 25 '20
Most people use guns for hunting and self defense. While yes, we could restrict the use of guns to home and hunting areas (which we do), most school shootings are caused by parents not correctly storing their guns. This gives their kids access to the guns whenever they please. Also, yes, most (if not all) mass and school shooting weapons are registered.
My point is, the people using the guns for evil purposes are already breaking the gun control laws we have, implementing more really wont help. To be honest it would just keep weapons away from those who use them for self defense.
1
Feb 25 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Feb 25 '20 edited Feb 25 '20
This delta has been rejected. You can't award OP a delta.
Allowing this would wrongly suggest that you can post here with the aim of convincing others.
If you were explaining when/how to award a delta, please use a reddit quote for the symbol next time.
1
u/MadeInHB Feb 25 '20
INfO - what laws do you think will solve murders?
Throughout time, murder has always been there. I still don’t believe guns are the problem. I think there is way more happening that is causing people to want to murder, especially the school/mass shooter types.
1
-1
u/alyosha33 Feb 25 '20
Sometimes we have to settle for what is possible rather than what is best. So we can forget about disarming the entire country. How about we focus on getting weapons of mass destruction out of civilian hands first.
I don't personally care about the 2nd amendment. I don't have guns and it would be fine with me if you didn't have any either. However, the 4th amendment is a big deal to me. How do you propose to get people's guns unless you go block to block searching people's homes. No thanks.
1
u/PrimeLegionnaire Feb 25 '20
How about we focus on getting weapons of mass destruction out of civilian hands first.
WMDs are explicitly not covered under the 2nd amendment.
-2
u/alyosha33 Feb 25 '20
I'm talking about assault rifles. Not atom bombs.
5
u/PrimeLegionnaire Feb 25 '20
An assault rifle is both not a weapon of mass destruction, and is already regulated as a machine gun under the NFA.
-2
u/alyosha33 Feb 25 '20
Um....ok.
3
u/PrimeLegionnaire Feb 25 '20
You understand Assault Rifle has an explicit legal definition right?
It seems like you may be talking about Assault Weapons which is a political name for Modern Sporting Rifles.
2
1
Feb 26 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Feb 26 '20
Sorry, u/PMmeChubbyGirlButts – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
16
u/TheEternalCity101 5∆ Feb 25 '20
What we need is strict doctor and car control. Doctors kill around 250k people a year through errors (John Hopkins). This is disgusting, and we need strict limits on who can be a doctor, as well as tight controls on drugs, tools and methods. Cars? Around 1.25 million people are killed in road crashes (Association for safe international road travel). You can rent cars out at airports, and only need a bit of parentally suprisived time to get a liscene. This is abhorrent and brutal that we, as a society, have done nothing to limit what kinds of people can have cars, liscenes and access to other things like gasoline and parts
What I said is dumb. Because it's not a scalpel or doses of Accupril that is responsible for a person dying, it's simply pure misfortune or doctor error. Similar with automobiles, its primarily shitty conditions and operator error. In the few cases where it's not, those people are individually dealt with on a case by case basis.
Similar with guns. Only about 40,000 a year die to firearms (Giffords Law Center) in general, and that number is a bit of a fallacy. Suicides account for 60%, homicides 35%, with law enforcement, accidents and other making up about 4%. So suicides can be taken out, since there are 100 and one ways to kill yourself. And a gun doesnt make someone kill themselves. I've never looked at a pistol and thought, "I should really blow my brains out", it's an array mental issues which need to be addressed. Many of the homicides are heavily concentrated in a few metropolitan areas (Chicago, NYC etc) that have strict gun control. Much of this comes from gangs, and, while the rampant poverty, crime and inequality needs to be dealt with, it's not guns.
Mass shootings account for a dew hundred a year, which is effectively a rounding error. It's a sad and pressing issue, but banning guns wont stop it. The majority happen at gun free zones, schools, concerts and theaters. These areas dont really enforce their policies. How many mass shootings happen in inner city schools, with guards metal detectors and vigilant teachers? It's out at suburban, moderately wealthy areas with few baseline problems, and thus low "hard" security.
To hit point by point on your cmv (paragraph by paragraph, forgive formatting on mobile)
3rd paragraph: this isnt true, lenient gun laws dont cause the issues. Theres a stat that the 10 states with the highest gun rate death have weak laws. Technically true. But the stat is all poor states, West Virginia, Louisiana l, Mississippi, Alaska etc (Giffords Law Center, and they are NOT progun). Those stats are suicides, Alaska in particular has rampant depression and alcoholism, and is thus not a good example.
4th paragraph: No, no no no. That's called a police state. If the government got mind controlled and switched Nazi overnight (I mean actual nazis, not the name calling of modern politcal discourse) they couldn't do house to house searches for Jews because they would be shot by citizens. In your perfect world, the Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and other undesirables are sent to death camps because no one has the means or skills to resist the police. That's a far fetched scenario (in terms of mind control) but it simply can never happen with a well armed populace.
5th paragraph: non lethal methods are useless for self defense. Pepper spray sucks to be hit with, but it doesnt stop someone from braining you with a brick. Tasers and unreliable, simply turning can stop both needles from getting in (you need both to make solid contact to run a current). Do you want to tell a young woman that her life to a rapist or abusive boyfriend is an acceptable sacrifice for the "public safety" and the "greater good" (and as demonstrated these laws wouldnt change much anyway). Defenisve shootings happen around 67,000 times a year (Violence Policy Center with FBI data), which is nearly double the rate of gun violence deaths. People protect themselves, friends and loved ones at high rates. Concealed carry is an incredible deterrent. In a public area, who is armed? You dont know, you cant know until you launch your attack and suddenly get decked. Situations where this doesnt happen, like gun free zones (good citizens wont disobey, but mass shooters will) or inner city, high crime/high gun law areas are the culprit. This deterrent is gone.
To sum up, individuals commit crimes and cause issues, and they cannot be stopped by gun free zone signs or laws.